Chris's Moblog

by chris

user profile | dashboard | imagewall

« older newer »

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Search this moblog

Recent visitors


(viewed 1532 times)
Bookmark and Share
Especially when you see where it redirects to.---- â?©
17th Nov 2006, 14:02   | tags:,,

17th Nov 2006, 14:11

Sprocket says:

I read it too quickly and transposed the H and C

17th Nov 2006, 14:14

Sprocket says:

Ha Ha, just checked the redirect – once again the Sun amazes me with its brilliance.

17th Nov 2006, 14:17

We salute the Sun, only they can trivialise such things so well..

17th Nov 2006, 14:31

Alfie says:


17th Nov 2006, 14:36

paintist says:

oh boy :-(

17th Nov 2006, 15:08



17th Nov 2006, 17:18

I see it has been taken down now..

the people at the Sun are the lowest of the low..

17th Nov 2006, 19:09

shaaaaark says:

Leftie-libruls say this about The Sun.

But what it reports is sympathetic and in keeping with popular thought.

Paedophilia is a disgusting and abhorrent act. If you had children, wouldn't you want to know if a [wanted] kiddie fiddler was living in your street? Or next to your child's school? Or near the local playground?

I would. And I'd want him removed from any of the above places. If you disagree, you're either trolling or, in all honesty, somewhat disturbing.

Crimes of malice against property and grown-ups are one thing. Sexualoffences against grown-ups are disturbing and saddening. Sexual offences against children are very much beyond the pale and should completely disgust any right-thinking person.

18th Nov 2006, 06:30

I agree with the statement and through legitimate channels we should have more information.

The issue was that redirected to now maybe this was not done by the sun and by somebody who was making a point! The domain was registered in a false name and has now been taken down. Maybe it was the sun who knows...

18th Nov 2006, 08:22

seaneeboy says:

Shaaaark, Yes, if I was a parent I would want to know and protect my kids.

However this brings it down again to the fear of the dirty-mac wearing stranger. Most child abuse happens by those who know and/or are related to the victim.

The minority of child sex abuse cases involve strangers - yet that's where the media focus of fear is.

A "Sarah's Law" wouldn't have the impact people expect. It would' however, cause peodphiles to move neighbourhood, change their name, start over.

Is it a case of "Chese them out of town and then it's not our problem"?

And I'm certainly not trolling.

18th Nov 2006, 11:05

mat says:

Er, if a known wanted pedophile was living in my street, I'd be asking some pretty serious questions of the police as to why they haven't nicked him yet. I wouldn't want his (or hers, presumably. you never hear about that though..) location released to the public, because then some idiot would likely take the law into his own hands. Remember the pediatrician in Cardiff who got lynched because a bunch of bloodthirsty fuckwits couldn't read properly?

If a sex offender who has served his time and has been considered safe for release was living near me, then no, I wouldn't want to know about it. Yes, the nonce is just about the worst form of criminal and the sexual abuse of children is a sickening and reprehensible act, but once punishment has been delivered, they are just another citizen. Often one who is in need of help, not pillioring and persecution.

In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, and citizens have a right to their privacy. You do not have the right to pry into someone's private life, and you certainly do not have the right to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty based on their past record.

Oh, and if I had kids, I'm intelligent enough to know that the real danger they face, according to the numbers, is not abduction, not rape, but roads. A vanishingly tiny number of kids are abused by strangers each year, yet thousands die on the roads. How about a website where the locations of known bad drivers is listed?

If The Sun really cared about children, they'd be campaigning for better road safety. But they don't care, they just want to shift copy, and pedophilia is a wonderful thing to shout about and sell papers with. It works because the people who read the redtops are so fucking stupid or lazy that they can't figure things out for themselves and just react to the blatent emotional goading without seeing what's being done to them. Don't for one second think the Sun don't know exactly what they're doing either, these papers are run by intelligent people.

Representing popular thought indeed. They think what the Sun reports because that's what the Sun reports - if they actually thought it through rationally, they'd see how tiny the danger is and how morally offensive the idea of creating a "people's justice" system is. A lot of people don't think, don't want to think, and even if they did, don't know how to think. An emotional reaction to deliberately provocative journalism is not the result of thinking.

So, that's yer leftie liberal viewpoint. Not that I ever claimed to be a liberal leftie. I'm a brutal humanitarian geniocrat. :)

18th Nov 2006, 11:59

Twiglet says:

I am a parent of a primary school age child and I agree with EVERY word mat says. I don't buy the papers because I can't stand the shit they print.

18th Nov 2006, 12:32

seaneeboy says:

Totally agree with mat. The day we start prosecuting for people's thoughts and not their actions is an utterly terrifying one.

18th Nov 2006, 13:07

Mrs540NLI says:

I agree totally with Mat.

As a mother I fear in some way or other everyday for my offsring. However I am also aware that my children are at risk from everyday things and so I, hopefully, educate them to understand the world we live in and accept that whilst our legal system is far from perfect sometimes it works. It's all too easy to have a knee jerk reation to the sensationalist press but publishing names and addresses achieves nothing. It demonieses the individual involved(perhaps rightly so ? ) but drives all others who have, may or will commit these terrible acts underground and may never be brought to justice.

I may be shouted down for the next sentence, but paradoxically the internet has helped to fuel the interest in child pornography as for a while those wishing to view such content were able to legitimatly and annoymously. Thankfully that is not the case now.

18th Nov 2006, 13:30

SaharaSB says:

i read recently about the new law that is being currently discussed that would grant "single mothers" access to know if known sex offenders live nearby.

firstly, what about married mothers!? there argument was that single mothers are targeted by child abusers as they are seen as vulnerable and an easy target.

if i was a mother i would certainly want to know who was a convicted child sex offender in my neighbourhood... so at the very least, i could be cautious. but as mat quite rightly says, abuse is more likely to happen by somebody that it known to the family.

what i have difficulty with is that people on sex offenders can include one-time flashers, anybody that has been caught having sex outside or in front of other people.. etc.etc. so somebody that are on this list might not neccessarily pose a threat to children or have any tendencies to towards kids anyway. But they will be ousted and probably physically attacked for being on this list. Not that I'm defending any sex offenders here but I'm just saying...

Also, more worryingly... anybody that offended before 1997 will not even be on the list !

well done !

19th Nov 2006, 13:17

Chav Bling Bling says:

I have had fantasies of SHITTING in a little girl's mouth and then she swallows the shit, which, in turn, becomes shit again that is reshat out of her tiny rectum!!

1st Jan 2010, 16:41